Parking eye making a 'kind' offer...

TheFlamingRed

Coupon-mad wrote: »

So wait for Morrisons to say this rubbish, then reply and say 'tell you what, I am a regular customer whose family spends £xxxxx per annum between us. How about YOU pay the £60 and better still, kick out Parking Eye as you are in bed with a notorious firm, suing your customers left, right and centre like Civil Enforcement did to the Co-op. Morrisons is being played by a big player and if your Head Office cannot see that then you will lose customers in droves. ParkingEye are not operating a 'traffic space maximisation scheme' as it was sold to you where they told you they would increase footfall. This is well known and Aldi are also suffering at their hands - this modus operandi is not compatible with a customer service-focussed retail ethic. Wise up Morrisons, please. I won't be paying the £60 because my own costs and damages for distress at receiving a court claim are in three figures, as you can imagine. How would you feel if this was your parent getting a court claim for shopping? This is wholly unacceptable - I ask you again, cancel this charge, properly, now.'

This needs to be written to all retailers (supermarkets especially where you're there multiple times a year) whenever you get a ticket from a PPC. Who knows, one day, one of them might even get the hint.

jkdd77

Guys_Dad wrote: »

PE will have more than the £25 court costs. They are making an offer to cancel and you are doing right to negotiate.

They will have a reason for cancelling the other charges - plausible and who knows, maybe even true. If it gets to court they will make the point that you have refused to contact them, refused to use the POPLA system and are a multiple offender who has done nothing to help them keeping their costs down by corresponding with them.

Your decision not to use the POPLA option ( assuming the cases were all post Oct 12) in multiple cases might not go down well with some judges, so be cautious.

As said, they have issued more court cases than all the others put together so it is a genuine concern.

Your mistake was in not dealing with the initial NtKs when they arose, as you probably now know.

However, you can still use the standard appeal points should it go to court.

The reason PE cancel is because they know they have no* chance in court if their principal has ordered them to do so, as here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5035107

This would be in addition to, not instead of "the standard appeal points".

Since all of PE's invoices are wholly without merit when the principal has cancelled, as PE impliedly acknowledged in cancelling the other four, and since using POPLA is optional, I don't see why the OP should be penalised for having ignored them, any more than one would be penalised for ignoring any other attempt by a stranger to obtain money to which they are not entitled.

Since PE cancelled their other four begging letters, and since the OP wasn't even driving on every occasion, I don't see how the OP could be described as "a multiple offender".

If PE want to throw money away chasing their unenforceable invoices, that's their problem, not the OP's. If PE are unhappy that the landowner has ordered them to cancel, that's between them and the landowner, not the OP.

It is PE's responsibility to be sure their claims are well-grounded before filing them, and, if PE want to abuse the court system by filing tens of thousands of frivolous claims, then any costs incurred are theirs alone. The courts are not meant for fishing trips, nor as a means of intimidating victims into paying non-existent debts.

*Disclaimer: with small claims judges, there is always a non-zero chance of a perverse verdict, or one that is wholly incorrect in law.